Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35606727›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2022

Extracellular vesicle biomarkers for pancreatic cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Erna Jia, Na Ren, Xianquan Shi, Rongkui Zhang, Haixin Yu, Fan Yu, Shaoyou Qin, Jinru Xue

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Challenges of early detection of pancreatic cancer.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Erna Jia *Department of Gastroenterology, The Third Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Na Ren *Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Jilin University, No. 126, Xiantai Street, Jilin, Changchun, China.
Xianquan ShiDepartment of Ultrasound, Beijing Friendship Hospital of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Rongkui ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Haixin YuDepartment of General Surgery, Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Fan YuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Third Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Shaoyou QinDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Third Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Jinru XueDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Jilin University, No. 126, Xiantai Street, Jilin, Changchun, China. jinruxue@jlu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtracellular vesicle (EV) biomarkers have promising diagnosis and screening capacity for several cancers, but the diagnostic value for pancreatic cancer (PC) is controversial. The aim of our study was to review the diagnostic performance of EV biomarkers for PC.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of PubMed, Medline, and Web Of Science databases from inception to 18 Feb 2022. We identified studies reporting the diagnostic performance of EV biomarkers for PC and summarized the information of sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), or receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve) in according to a pre-designed data collection form. Pooled sensitivity and specificity was calculated using a random-effect model.

resultsWe identified 39 studies, including 2037 PC patients and 1632 noncancerous, seven of which were conducted independent validation tests. Seventeen studies emphasized on EV RNAs, sixteen on EV proteins, and sixteen on biomarker panels. MiR-10b, miR-21, and GPC1 were the most frequently reported RNA and protein for PC diagnosis. For individual RNAs and proteins, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 79% (95% CI: 77-81%) and 87% (95% CI: 85-89%), 72% (95% CI: 69-74%) and 77% (95% CI: 74-80%), respectively. the pooled sensitivity and specificity of EV RNA combined with protein panels were 84% (95% CI: 81-86%) and 89% (95% CI: 86-91%), respectively. Surprisingly, for early stage (stage I and II) PC EV biomarkers showed excellent diagnostic performance with the sensitivity of 90% (95% CI: 87-93%) and the specificity of 94% (95% CI: 92-95%). Both in sensitivity and subgroup analyses, we did not observe notable difference in pooled sensitivity and specificity. Studies might be limited by the isolation and detection techniques of EVs to a certain extent.

conclusionsEV biomarkers showed appealing diagnostic preference for PC, especially for early stage PC. Solving the deficiency of technologies of isolation and detection EVs has important implications for application these novel noninvasive biomarkers in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Extracellular VesiclesMicroRNAsPancreatic NeoplasmsBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorHumansBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAsBiomarkerDiagnosisExtracellular vesiclePancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID35606727
PMCPMC9125932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.